Memeorandum

October 22, 2006

Times Public Editor - SWIFT Disclosure Was Wrong

Byron Calame, NY Times Public Editor, has changed his mind and now believes that the disclosure of the SWIFT international funds transfer program by the NY Times was a mistake. So why did he defend it a few months ago? Well, that was Bush's fault - the critics were so nasty that Calame reflexively defended the Times.

This is all buried as an afterthought to his Sunday column provocatively headlined - "Can ‘Magazines’ of The Times Subsidize News Coverage?". Some excerpts:

Banking Data: A Mea Culpa

Since the job of public editor requires me to probe and question the
published work and wisdom of Times journalists, there’s a special
responsibility for me to acknowledge my own flawed assessments.

My July 2 column strongly supported The Times’s decision to publish
its June 23 article on a once-secret banking-data surveillance program.
After pondering for several months, I have decided I was off base.
There were reasons to publish the controversial article, but they were
slightly outweighed by two factors to which I gave too little emphasis.
While it’s a close call now, as it was then, I don’t think the article
should have been published.

Those two factors are really what bring me to this corrective
commentary: the apparent legality of the program in the United States,
and the absence of any evidence that anyone’s private data had actually
been misused. I had mentioned both as being part of “the most
substantial argument against running the story,” but that reference was
relegated to the bottom of my column.

...

I haven’t found any evidence in the intervening months that the
surveillance program was illegal under United States laws. Although
data-protection authorities in Europe have complained that the formerly
secret program violated their rules on privacy, there have been no
Times reports of legal action being taken. Data-protection rules are
often stricter in Europe than in America, and have been a frequent
source of friction.

Also, there still haven’t been any abuses of private data linked to
the program, which apparently has continued to function. That, plus the
legality issue, has left me wondering what harm actually was avoided
when The Times and two other newspapers disclosed the program. The lack
of appropriate oversight — to catch any abuses in the absence of media
attention — was a key reason I originally supported publication. I
think, however, that I gave it too much weight.

In addition, I became embarrassed by the how-secret-is-it issue,
although that isn’t a cause of my altered conclusion. My original
support for the article rested heavily on the fact that so many people
already knew about the program that serious terrorists also must have
been aware of it. But critical, and clever, readers were quick to point
to a contradiction: the Times article and headline had both emphasized
that a “secret” program was being exposed.

...What kept me from seeing these matters more clearly earlier in what
admittedly was a close call? I fear I allowed the vicious criticism of
The Times by the Bush administration to trigger my instinctive affinity
for the underdog and enduring faith in a free press — two traits that I
warned readers about in my first column.

Toothpaste, meet tube.

For background, here is the original story and my first post on it. My theme was that publicizing this program would force European banking executives to end their cooperation with the program (although there have been grumblings from Europe, I don't believe that has happened as yet.)

Here are my thoughts on Calame's first column supporting the Times coverage; here is a post explaining the benefits of keeping secrets - let me reprise this Times reporting:

But Mr. Wechsler said the disclosure might nonetheless hamper
intelligence collection by making financial institutions resistant to
requests for access to records.

"I wouldn't be surprised if these recent articles have made it more
difficult to get cooperation from our friends in Europe, since it may
make their cooperation with the U.S. less politically palatable," Mr.
Wechsler said.

Though privacy advocates have denounced the examination of banking
transactions, the Swift consortium has defended its cooperation with
the counterterrorism program and has not indicated any intention to
stop cooperating with the broad administrative subpoenas issued to
obtain its data.

Bah. Well, I suppose we should acknowledge Mr. Calame's grace in admitting his error, and before the election to boot. And keep in mind, the decsion to publish was not his to make.

That said, this flip-flop will annoy folks on the other side of this debate without mollifying cranks such as me. I would guess that Mr. Calame's lonely job just got a little lonelier.

P.S. There continues to be zero probability of the Times addressing their other comical Swift coverage. Ms. Zernike's "hail of fire" stands uncorrected and unsupported.

Comments

"I fear I allowed the vicious criticism of The Times by the Bush administration to trigger my instinctive affinity for the underdog and enduring faith in a free press — two traits that I warned readers about in my first column."

And oh, by the way, would someone please fix the small problem with the public treating the Times like a plague ship? Otherwise I'll lose this phoney baloney job and who'll stand up for treason if we don't, anyway?

Remember Comrades - the future belongs to the masses and only we at the Times are competent to lead them.

What kept me from seeing these matters more clearly earlier in what admittedly was a close call? I fear I allowed the vicious criticism of The Times by the Bush administration to trigger my instinctive affinity for the underdog and enduring faith in a free press..."

What conceited tripe!

If he was wrong, as he seems to admit ("Those two factors are really what bring me to this corrective commentary: the apparent legality of the program in the United States, and the absence of any evidence that anyone’s private data had actually been misused."), then why insist that printing the story was a close call?

That the NYT would choose to print a critical news article that discloses classified information during wartime based on the level of criticism that its organization receives reveals the petty depths to which that institution has descended - not to mention its out and out "seditious" bent.

I just finished posting on this story and I am so angry, I am still shaking. The arrogance of this is mindboggling. I want these guys prosecuted, if there is any justice, it would happen, but I won't hold my breath.

"An instinctive affinity for the underdog..."
Mr Calame wouldn't know an underdog if it bit him in the ass. Calame's calumny, and that of his cohorts in the free press of this country, has been to savagly lie, distort and damage the reputation of this President since day 1. In regards to truth, decency and getting an honest shake from the media I can think of no greater underdog on the planet than the Bush Administration. At least today the BBC and now this guy sort of admit it. Who's next?

My first question is just what did he expect the administration to do when his newspaper published top secret codeword classified documents and explained just how our government was tracking the money, a task that the Times said needed to be done right after 9/11. That the whole bunch of them are not now in court defending their decision to print our secret plans and operations so the enemy can recover from them is just their luck that this administration is not prone to be that retaliatory in its response. They are just lucky that LBJ or FDR isn't president now.

What I would also like to hear from him is how he thinks this newspaper, which aborted this operation by printing the classified information and methodology, will work to help the administration recover from their actions. I don't expect to hear anything from them any time soon as I don't really expect them to say anything except we bad, sorry, next? I want the reporters responsible fired or penalized somehow - send them to Thule to count the birds flying over for example or send them to interview the Moonies one by one and alphabetically. Have them write sympathetic stories about Fred Phelps and hawk them in the halls of Walter Reed Hospital. Have them babysit for the local trailer park.

So, since Mr. Calamity has just come to the conclusion that this was wrong and a bad thing, perhaps he could let us in on the sources that were feeding him this information. The article would not have gotten very far without such, and these insiders seem to have a vested interest in undermining such programs.

He has yet to make that cognitive leap that saying 'I'm sorry' is not the same things as making amends so it does not happen *again*. And that includes going after the sources that gave out this information as the result *did* give operational intel to the enemy on how to move funds and in what amounts to escape ready detection. The enemy was only slightly aware of this before, but NYT coverage made *good ideas* go into the realm of *operational necessities*. Knowing the US Government was doing this in theory was not enough to stop traceable transactions. Making it known that we could and *did* track them was a vital difference.

So please, Mr. Calamity, it is time to come clean as this is about more than your career.

Those two factors are really what bring me to this corrective commentary: the apparent legality of the program in the United States, and the absence of any evidence that anyone’s private data had actually been misused.

Did the idea that the program shut down terror networks that otherwise would've been more effective at killing Americans ever occur to him? And if so, how far down in his "factors" list did it rate? Just curious.

So, since Mr. Calamity has just come to the conclusion that this was wrong and a bad thing, perhaps he could let us in on the sources that were feeding him this information. The article would not have gotten very far without such, and these insiders seem to have a vested interest in undermining such programs.

Perhaps the leaker was revealed in Hanauer and the Times saw that the jig is up? Could be.

If we're going to hope that this apologia is a 'sign', let's hope that it's a preemptive move on Commissar Calame's part to distance himself from those he believes will soon be undergoing trial for the NSC disclosures.

The thought of Keller, Sulzberger, Risen and Lichtblau wandering aimlessly around the exercise yard at Leavenworth always cheers me up.

I keep wondering of the staff dismissal on the House committee might be a precursor to something similiar happening wrt the Senate intelligence committee. Maybe accompanied by a reading of the Rockefeller memo on national TV...

So let's recap: Repub. scandal, outing gay Congressmen. Dem. scandals: Senate Minority leader in fraudulent land deal; House Minority leader and her staffer: guilty of leaking classified intelligence report; NYT admits guilt in leaking national intelligence secrets. And there are still 10 days left in October.

"Well yes your Honor, we knew that publishing the illegal leak was wrong and unfair to the Administration and severely damaging to the national security of America, but we had to publish it or otherwise we'd have "lost access" in the future to the lawbreaking leakers and their future leaks. Surely that overrides concerns of honesty, decency and integrity."

Think the terrorists instruction book contained the how and when to use throw away cell phones as a result of the leak of the NSA terrorists tracking system had something to do with this 'admission' of treason? One question that need an answer is 'how many American Soldiers have died' as a result of the leaks and the traitorous acts of Hanoi John, Turbin Durbin, Weasel Clinton, Boxer, Peloshi and Kennedy? Hundreds, probably runs 75% + of those killed in combat in Iraq. War crime trials are still going on from WWII, how long will it take to hang all of our traitors?

And of course, the last wheeze of the piece is to BLAME BUSH. The writer still can't take responsibility for his own actions - it's BUSH's fault!

Aha! The Devil made him do it.

But not ONLY was it Bush's fault - it was Bush taking advantage of the writer's NOBLER INSTINCTS! Damn! If only he wasn't such a champion of the downtrodden none of this would have happened!

That Devil. He is REALLY insidious, isn't he? You'd think he'd appeal to one's baser instincts - like, for example, a need to look good to one's peers, to appear noble, to get one's name in print (O Pulitzer, where art thou?). But, no! Instead Satan takes advantage of the writer's pure and selfless desire to do good! (After all, it couldn't have been any of that other suff!)

If only Bush could have inspired some sober contemplation BEFORE this matter went to print in the first place! Oh wait - the administration DID ask that it not be run. That damned Devil! Why, he caused this article to be run by asking that it NOT be published! Uncanny!

Well, one thing's certain: The writer is in thrall to Satan. He can't be allowed to write any more, not with THAT hand up his butt. It's not his fault though! Let's all remember that!

I think something big is about to hit the fan. Calame comes out with this now? It's a CYA move on his part. Pretty soon the NSA investigation will get in full swing and all will start to run for cover. Byron is in a full sprint at this point.

Since in effect his column basically admits malice and forethought, if it becomes apparent there is no Justice Department investigation, then perhaps a nationwide class action suit could be brought under some basis like reckless endangerment of our country and troops due to perhaps letting some terrorists escape detection.

I just added a link from Newsbusters where they wonder if the mainstream media will give this any play at all? My comment to that is "Yes!" It will get play. The days of hiding this and depending on the Networks to keep quiet are over. Rush will be all over this in the morning, as will Fox and every other talk radio host. The Blogosphere is already lighting up, and judging by the number of posters here that are new names to me, I think this is going to have traction like you won't believe. There is a lot of anger out here about these leaks.

I also think something very very BIG is about to break and like Maryrose says, this is a premptive CYA.

APPARENT! As if the Times didn't have a battery of lawyers scouring this for something they could have handed the guy as evidence of illegality! And the best mea culpa we can get, months later, is APPARENT! Dive into a thesaurus, boy, you're looking for a phrase like glaringly obvious.

the absence of any evidence that anyone’s private data had actually been misused

And just when did that become apparent? Only now? No, it was obvious then, and while the writer hoped something would turn up all these months later to vindicate him, nothing has.

I suppose we should acknowledge Mr. Calame's grace in admitting his error, and before the election to boot. And keep in mind, the decsion to publish was not his to make.

Fair enough, but this apology won't do. Give Calame immunity to testify, but prosecute the Times. No need to destroy the paper, just take away Keller's beach house or something, you know, that they'd actually NOTICE.

OT -- Wow! Maybe this is old news, but I did not know this before. I am listening to Book TV on CSPAN, the author is David Kuo. He just talked about a time, after an automobile accident, caused by a seizure that turned out to be caused by a brain tumor, landed him in the ICU. He got a call that night from Karl Rove who mentioned that he understood months of hospital stays. Turns out that Rove's wife is a double breast cancer survivor and every night he'd sleep at the hospital to be by her side. I had no idea.

Hillary would welcome near parity in the congress for now. But a majority threatens her ultimate ambition more than Karl Rove. If Dean and the Netroots crash, Hillary, the Democratic Leadership Conference and the Blue Dog Dems are the only ones around to pick up the pieces heading into 2008.

I think you are confused, but I could be wrong. I'm pretty sure though that it is this program that caused John Snow, Treasury, to fire accuse the Times of "breathtaking arrogance" and said: "Your charge that our efforts to convince The New York Times not to publish were 'half-hearted' is incorrect and offensive."

Huh? I'm not sure what the question is. What does the GJ have to do with my characterization of trying to get the Times not to publish on the Swift program? I think I must have missed something. I don't want to have an error and have to do my own mea culpa.

Sara, the suggestion was made that Calame's apologia was made to distance himself from any criminal charges brought against Timesmen re the publication of this story. The gj was begun to investigate the NSA leak, not this one. But it is possible that it has expanded to Swift or that the Calame was concerned about the direction of the NSA inquiry and decided to tidy up his position on Swift.

I agree Snow commented about the financial tracking program, but the full White House press still rings in my mind as to the NSA leak story which was delayed about a year and came on the eve of the Risen Lietchblau book release

I got all that Clarice, but I didn't think I was the one conflating the two. If something I wrote gives that impression, than I want to correct it. The only reference I made to the GJ was to mention it exists and is investigating press leaks in response to a comment made in a linked post.

Keller said he knew of only three people outside of the administration who were asked by the administration to contact the paper -- Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton from the 9/11 commission, and Democratic Rep. Jack Murtha.

"Not all of them urged us not to publish," Keller said.

Keller, who was accused of arrogance by Snow, told CNN, "I think it would be arrogant of us to pre-empt the work of Congress and the courts by deciding on our own that these programs are perfectly legal and abuse-proof."

"We spent weeks listening to the administration's case," he said.

Well, I am glad the Times decided to pre-empt Congress by publishing their story rather than deferring to Congressional hearings, legislation, or, dare we say it, Congressional silence.

Remember the Swift Program used to monitor and follow the money of terrorists? Remember when the New York Times splashed the details of that program across its front page? Remember how the White House and the intelligence gurus begged the New York Times not to reveal the program? Remember how they even brought in the big gun democrats from the 9/11 Commission to plead with the NYT not to run the story? And who could forget Secretary Snow's angry letter to the Times? Remember? I thought you might.

Not a word about the GJ. I guess I'm the one confused, but not about the two programs or the GJ.

Bill Keller, the executive editor of the New York Times, sat on a couch in the Oval Office of the White House, three feet from President George W. Bush, and listened.

For a meeting without historical precedent, the president of the United States had called the Times to the White House to personally try to prevent a state secret from appearing in print—an exposé of the National Security Agency’s efforts to monitor phone calls without court-approved warrants that the Times had held back on for over a year. Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. sat in a wing chair facing Bush, while Keller and Washington bureau chief Philip Taubman sat across from Bush’s lawyer, Harriet Miers, and national-security adviser Stephen Hadley. General Michael Hayden, the then-director of the National Security Agency, sat alongside Bush with a thick briefing book in his lap.

After stiff pleasantries, Bush issued an emphatic warning: If they revealed the secret program to the public and there was another terrorist attack on American soil, the Paper of Record would be implicated. “The basic message,” recalls Keller, “was, ‘You’ll have blood on your hands.’ ”

The meeting lasted an hour. Afterward, Sulzberger and Keller stood outside the White House. Undaunted by the president’s logic and his threats, Keller told Sulzberger, “Nothing I heard in there changed my mind.” Sulzberger agreed.

Eleven days after the meeting with Bush, the Times defied the president; the story, by James Risen and Eric Licht­blau, was headlined bush lets u.s. spy on callers without courts. That same day, the USA Patriot Act was blocked in the Senate.

I do happen to think that the GJ out there is making those at the Times very nervous though and that this is a premptive strike since I think they are already in big trouble over the NSA leak and they don't want double trouble.

Your charge that our efforts to convince The New York Times not to publish were "half-hearted" is incorrect and offensive. Nothing could be further from the truth. Over the past two months, Treasury has engaged in a vigorous dialogue with the Times - from the reporters writing the story to the D.C. Bureau Chief and all the way up to you. It should also be noted that the co-chairmen of the bipartisan 9-11 Commission, Governor Tom Kean and Congressman Lee Hamilton, met in person or placed calls to the very highest levels of the Times urging the paper not to publish the story. Members of Congress, senior U.S. Government officials and well-respected legal authorities from both sides of the aisle also asked the paper not to publish or supported the legality and validity of the program.

Indeed, I invited you to my office for the explicit purpose of talking you out of publishing this story. And there was nothing "half-hearted" about that effort. I told you about the true value of the program in defeating terrorism and sought to impress upon you the harm that would occur from its disclosure. I stressed that the program is grounded on solid legal footing, had many built-in safeguards, and has been extremely valuable in the war against terror. Additionally, Treasury Under Secretary Stuart Levey met with the reporters and your senior editors to answer countless questions, laying out the legal framework and diligently outlining the multiple safeguards and protections that are in place.

You have defended your decision to compromise this program by asserting that "terror financiers know" our methods for tracking their funds and have already moved to other methods to send money. The fact that your editors believe themselves to be qualified to assess how terrorists are moving money betrays a breathtaking arrogance and a deep misunderstanding of this program and how it works. While terrorists are relying more heavily than before on cumbersome methods to move money, such as cash couriers, we have continued to see them using the formal financial system, which has made this particular program incredibly valuable.

Lastly, justifying this disclosure by citing the "public interest" in knowing information about this program means the paper has given itself free license to expose any covert activity that it happens to learn of - even those that are legally grounded, responsibly administered, independently overseen, and highly effective. Indeed, you have done so here.

What you've seemed to overlook is that it is also a matter of public interest that we use all means available - lawfully and responsibly - to help protect the American people from the deadly threats of terrorists. I am deeply disappointed in the New York Times.

Your charge that our efforts to convince The New York Times not to publish were "half-hearted" is incorrect and offensive. Nothing could be further from the truth. Over the past two months, Treasury has engaged in a vigorous dialogue with the Times - from the reporters writing the story to the D.C. Bureau Chief and all the way up to you. It should also be noted that the co-chairmen of the bipartisan 9-11 Commission, Governor Tom Kean and Congressman Lee Hamilton, met in person or placed calls to the very highest levels of the Times urging the paper not to publish the story. Members of Congress, senior U.S. Government officials and well-respected legal authorities from both sides of the aisle also asked the paper not to publish or supported the legality and validity of the program.

Indeed, I invited you to my office for the explicit purpose of talking you out of publishing this story. And there was nothing "half-hearted" about that effort. I told you about the true value of the program in defeating terrorism and sought to impress upon you the harm that would occur from its disclosure. I stressed that the program is grounded on solid legal footing, had many built-in safeguards, and has been extremely valuable in the war against terror. Additionally, Treasury Under Secretary Stuart Levey met with the reporters and your senior editors to answer countless questions, laying out the legal framework and diligently outlining the multiple safeguards and protections that are in place.

You have defended your decision to compromise this program by asserting that "terror financiers know" our methods for tracking their funds and have already moved to other methods to send money. The fact that your editors believe themselves to be qualified to assess how terrorists are moving money betrays a breathtaking arrogance and a deep misunderstanding of this program and how it works. While terrorists are relying more heavily than before on cumbersome methods to move money, such as cash couriers, we have continued to see them using the formal financial system, which has made this particular program incredibly valuable.

Lastly, justifying this disclosure by citing the "public interest" in knowing information about this program means the paper has given itself free license to expose any covert activity that it happens to learn of - even those that are legally grounded, responsibly administered, independently overseen, and highly effective. Indeed, you have done so here.

What you've seemed to overlook is that it is also a matter of public interest that we use all means available - lawfully and responsibly - to help protect the American people from the deadly threats of terrorists. I am deeply disappointed in the New York Times.

While it’s a close call now, as it was then, I don’t think the article should have been published.

Yes, quite a close call. And assuming he has any, perhaps in the event his kids are someday incinerated in their schoolbus by a foreign-financed jihadi that might otherwise have been detected by the aforementioned program, I'd imagine that might also give some infinitesimal additional weight to what remains...an extremely close call.

Publishing the NSA story appears to put the NYT in serious legal jeopardy according to the plain language of Section 798(a)(3). I'm not at all sure that there is a section that covers disclosure of the SWIFT program.

I would just like to know why the DoJ hasn't indicted on the NSA disclosure yet.

Of course it is Sue. And they have no respect for the blogger out here, and think they will get away with it because (1) no one but their synchophants will see it, and (2) none of them will care. Newsbusters thinks the MSM will ignore. Won't work.

The fact that the Bush admin pushed so hard to keep the NYTs from publishing this story makes Calame's complaints about their vehement criticism afterwards all the more ridiculous.
It should have been entirely expected.

Bill Keller's defense of publishing the story has always been weak, again especially considering that it was entirely expected the admin was unhappy with that decision.

That none of them were better prepared to defend the decision to publish, knowing the criticism was coming, is inexcusible. How much of a bubble do you have to live in to expect that someone telling you NOT to do something wouldn't criticize you for doing that very thing?

What Calame meant to say:
...What kept me from seeing these matters more clearly earlier in what admittedly was a close call? I fear I live in a bubble, and you know how enticing it is too look at the pretty surface, and not through it.

--I fear I allowed the vicious criticism of The Times by the Bush administration to trigger my instinctive affinity for the underdog--

This is such a lie. On the one hand Calame acknowledges the Times were so UNAFRAID of the Admin as to flip them the bird and publish a story the Admin implored them not to and the the other reflective defense because the Time's was so vicious attacked? Since when has the Times been so afraid of Admin criticism?

Never.

This is the same lie the MSM pedaled in the Plame affair. As time goes on, more and more of the media acknowledge Wilson was a blowhard and so by proxy there was no WH viscous smear attack machine. Some still cling to the notion that while Wilson was full of beetle-juice the Admin acted obnoxiously (Pincus)...and yet the argument is to hollow.

What really gets me is that in 'a close call' the interest of the Nation, as a whole, does *not* get the benefit of the doubt. That is how far the *patriotic* MSM has gone: the warnings of elected officials are doubted *first*. Unless, of course, you have a (D) designator after your name.

I doubt that Mr. Calamity was driven by someone *else* in the hot seat or about to reveal themselves as the source of information, but to revisit this subject and show just how much the NYT is out to protect you, the unsuspecting public, against the viciousness of an Administration bent on... well... tracking terrorists. Yes, so dangerous that is, a President exercising his Constitutionally given Rights as President to use foreign sources to find those that would attack the Nation.

Dear me! Someone in the Government actually trying to do their job! Alert the media!

Oh, they don't like that.... what is it that they do like? If you *don't* do your job you get attacked. If you *do* your job, you get doubted, mistrusted and, yes, attacked. A very poor watchdog that barks all the time, at anything, without need to.

My present fantasy is that the New York Times will sink into bankruptcy and some really rich right winger will come in and scoop them up, which is second only to the fantasy of seeing Pinch frog marched off Times Square and into the hooskow.

The reason these mighty panjandrums of the press flipped the administration the bird is obvious,the latter were not sufficiently deferential,they should have said pretty pleae,with sugar on it,if that had failed they should have used the horses head

I don't know Slim. Their profits are way down because newspapers are losing advertising revenue right and left and they have that giant new money pit cathedral of self-importance they are building draining them dry.

But the money for the buyout will come from doing a sale / leasback of the building once it is finished. Numbers say he could generate 600 mil on the rollover. His other problem is the 1.1 billion he invested in the Boston Globe properties.

But hey what do I know , i'm the dummie who bought 100 share of bershire hathaway back in January of 97 for 1100 per share.

Closing price for that last week was in the neighboorhood of 99,900 per share.